ABSTRACT
To assess the quality of Indian clinical practice guidelines (CPG)s for the management of cardiovascular conditions, MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar and websites of relevant medical associations and government organisations were searched, from inception until August 2020, to identify Indian CPGs for the management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) conditions, produced in or between 2010 and 2019. Excluded were CPGs that were not specific to India, focused on alternative systems of medicine, of non-CVD conditions (even if they included a component of CVD), and those related to the electronic devices, cardiac biomarkers, or diagnostic procedures. Quality of the each included CPG was assessed using the AGREE II tool by four reviewers in duplicate, independently. Each AGREE II domain score and overall quality score was considered low (≤40%), moderate (40.1%-59.9%), and high (≥60%). Of the 23 CPGs included, six (26%) were reported to be adapted from other CPGs. Fourteen (61%) CPGs were produced by medical associations, six (26%) by individual authors and three (13%) by government agencies. Based on the AGREE II overall quality score, two (9%) CPGs were of high quality, four (17%) and seventeen (74%) CPGs were of moderate and low quality, respectively. Except for scope and purpose, and clarity of presentation all other domains were rated low. The quality of most Indian CPGs for managing CVD conditions assessed using the AGREE II tool was moderate-to-low. Combined efforts from different stakeholders are needed to develop, disseminate and implement high-quality CPGs while identifying and addressing barriers to their uptake to optimize patient care and improve outcomes.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) that informed recommendations in the recent American and European hypertension guidelines. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Meta-epidemiological study. We identified SRs that were cited for class I recommendations based on Level of Evidence-A in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension (ESC/ESH) hypertension guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Methodological and reporting quality of the SRs was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) checklist and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 40 SRs was included in the analysis (28 from 2017 ACC/AHA; 22 from 2018 ESC/ESH and 10 were included in both). Based on the AMSTAR-2 assessment, only 7.5% SRs were found to be of high methodological quality, 47.5% were of moderate, each 22.5% were of low and critically low quality. Based on the PRISMA checklist assessment, a mean of 24 items (SD (2.76) were reported appropriately, and only five SRs reported all 27 items appropriately. CONCLUSION: Methodological and reporting quality of SRs were found to vary considerably. Lack of information on the funding source of included studies, use of a protocol, integration of risk of bias assessments while interpreting findings and reporting of excluded studies were major methodological deficiencies.
